Few theories in origin science adequately explain how specified information can arise from chemicals. The only thing I've seen to answer this question is the controversial Design hypothesis.

But it has been said that Design isn't science, yet it uses the same type of reasoning that Darwin & Lyell use... but it just comes to a different conclusion given the new evidence in micro-biology, DNA research, and information science.

So if the Design hypothesis is false (which I'm open to) what else has better explanatory scope / power?

By code I assume you mean information and by information I assume you mean DNA?

In that case, nobody really knows but the most likely explanation is that DNA randomly mutated from chemicals (it is after all made from chemicals) and since it was the first thing capable of reproducing itself, it was the first replicator- whether the survival machine was alive or not is a false dichotomy. Basically, information probably came into life in the same way that everything did: through mutations.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 8/13/2012 11:47:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:By code I assume you mean information and by information I assume you mean DNA?

In that case, nobody really knows but the most likely explanation is that DNA randomly mutated from chemicals (it is after all made from chemicals) and since it was the first thing capable of reproducing itself, it was the first replicator- whether the survival machine was alive or not is a false dichotomy. Basically, information probably came into life in the same way that everything did: through mutations.

Yes, by info I mean the specified instructions for cellular activity, etc. But I'm not asking about random mutations or what DNA is mad out of (nucleic acids), what I AM asking is can any origin of life scientific theory explain pro tanto this type of information, which is not random, but highly specified. And can such theories explain better than Design?

Any origin of life theory must explain 3 things:1) the origin of the system for storing & encoding digital info in the cell2) the origin of the large amount functionally specified info in DNA3) the origin of the functional interdependence of parts in the cell's info processing system.

1 & 3 seem to have a chicken-egg problem with all other theories except for Design.

2 is constantly verified in our everyday experience through the use of language.

To say that such things arose randomly is to miss mark- for such information is Shannon information, it's not highly specified.

Without a deity, the only way that we know that DNA could have arisen is through mutations. Then again, there might have been an earlier version of DNA which was much more primitive and provided the first plateau for what we current see as DNA, but has been eliminated from the genome.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 8/13/2012 12:56:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Without a deity, the only way that we know that DNA could have arisen is through mutations. Then again, there might have been an earlier version of DNA which was much more primitive and provided the first plateau for what we current see as DNA, but has been eliminated from the genome.

Design doesn't presuppose a diety. All it argues is that what we observe today is intelligent agents creating information. Darwinian / Lyellian reasoning was to consult what we know of today to explain what has occured in the past. And today we see intelligent agents creating information, that is, information-- ALL of it, is a product of mind. My question remains, how else can we explain those three info-related things I mentioned earlier?

You speculate that there might have been an "earlier version of DNA" but this just pushes my question back in time.

At 8/13/2012 12:56:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Without a deity, the only way that we know that DNA could have arisen is through mutations. Then again, there might have been an earlier version of DNA which was much more primitive and provided the first plateau for what we current see as DNA, but has been eliminated from the genome.

Design doesn't presuppose a diety. All it argues is that what we observe today is intelligent agents creating information. Darwinian / Lyellian reasoning was to consult what we know of today to explain what has occured in the past. And today we see intelligent agents creating information, that is, information-- ALL of it, is a product of mind. My question remains, how else can we explain those three info-related things I mentioned earlier?

You speculate that there might have been an "earlier version of DNA" but this just pushes my question back in time.

The Fool: Any reasoning that stems starts from I don't know therefore is and appeal to ignorance. Evertime,.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 8/13/2012 11:47:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:By code I assume you mean information and by information I assume you mean DNA?

In that case, nobody really knows but the most likely explanation is that DNA randomly mutated from chemicals (it is after all made from chemicals) and since it was the first thing capable of reproducing itself, it was the first replicator- whether the survival machine was alive or not is a false dichotomy. Basically, information probably came into life in the same way that everything did: through mutations.

RNA was actually the first genetic material, and it is the precursor to DNA.

At 8/13/2012 12:56:31 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Without a deity, the only way that we know that DNA could have arisen is through mutations. Then again, there might have been an earlier version of DNA which was much more primitive and provided the first plateau for what we current see as DNA, but has been eliminated from the genome.

Design doesn't presuppose a diety. All it argues is that what we observe today is intelligent agents creating information. Darwinian / Lyellian reasoning was to consult what we know of today to explain what has occured in the past. And today we see intelligent agents creating information, that is, information-- ALL of it, is a product of mind. My question remains, how else can we explain those three info-related things I mentioned earlier?

You speculate that there might have been an "earlier version of DNA" but this just pushes my question back in time.

The Fool: Any reasoning that stems starts from I don't know therefore is and appeal to ignorance. Evertime,.

Thank you. Design doesn't claim 'I don't know' therefore... rather it claims, what we know of today can adequately explain information in the cell.

At 8/13/2012 11:47:32 AM, Lordknukle wrote:By code I assume you mean information and by information I assume you mean DNA?

In that case, nobody really knows but the most likely explanation is that DNA randomly mutated from chemicals (it is after all made from chemicals) and since it was the first thing capable of reproducing itself, it was the first replicator- whether the survival machine was alive or not is a false dichotomy. Basically, information probably came into life in the same way that everything did: through mutations.

RNA was actually the first genetic material, and it is the precursor to DNA.

So the coding for the amino acids was built into the RNA?

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

RNA was actually the first genetic material, and it is the precursor to DNA.

You say that as fact but there's more problems with RNA first models than I know how to list. Let me just list three:

1) RNA building blocks are hard to synthesize and easy to destroy.-Just synthesizing the nucleotide bases are hard enough since they're subject to a chemical process known as "deanimation." (See Shapiro & Miller). The other bases have extremely short half-lives not even measured in months! (uracil alone is 19 days). The evolutionary process imagined by Gilbert would be very long in comparison.-Plus the presence of nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose & the nucleotide bases are needed o build RNA. (See Dean Kenyon and Shapiro)....As a geologist I've studied that there's many more reasons why RNA building blocks are hard to synthesize and easy to destroy in the early Earth, but I'll spare you the technical talk.

2) Ribozymes are poor substitutes for proteins-RNA molecules possess very few of the specific enzymatic properties of proteins. It would be like claiming a hammer is all that's needed in order to build a house.

3) An RNA-based translation and coding system is implausible-The evolving RNA world would need to develop a coding and translation system based entirely on RNA AND generate the info necessary to build the proteins that later would be needed to replace it... a very tall order.

At 8/13/2012 7:33:56 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:Few theories in origin science adequately explain how specified information can arise from chemicals. The only thing I've seen to answer this question is the controversial Design hypothesis.

But it has been said that Design isn't science, yet it uses the same type of reasoning that Darwin & Lyell use... but it just comes to a different conclusion given the new evidence in micro-biology, DNA research, and information science.

So if the Design hypothesis is false (which I'm open to) what else has better explanatory scope / power?

This is a common misunderstanding IDers get from misinterpretting Shannon's theory of information. Namely, that information is anything but descriptive.

Say you have a series of levers and gears which open doors in a rat maze. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese at the end remains uneaten. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese is more likely to be eaten.

We can speak of this system in terms of a "digital code" where 0 stands for "open maze door" and 1 stands for "close maze door."

In this maze, if the user enters the "code" of 01001, the probability of cheese being eaten rises. If the user enters 10110, the probability of cheese being eaten is zero.

The system made up rats, cheese, gears, and maze doors has a "digital code" which transforms 1's and 0's into cheese being eaten.

No designer is needed for the system to go from maze door open -> eaten cheese. However, we can interpret the system as digital information leading to functions.

At 8/13/2012 7:33:56 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:Few theories in origin science adequately explain how specified information can arise from chemicals. The only thing I've seen to answer this question is the controversial Design hypothesis.

But it has been said that Design isn't science, yet it uses the same type of reasoning that Darwin & Lyell use... but it just comes to a different conclusion given the new evidence in micro-biology, DNA research, and information science.

So if the Design hypothesis is false (which I'm open to) what else has better explanatory scope / power?

This is a common misunderstanding IDers get from misinterpretting Shannon's theory of information. Namely, that information is anything but descriptive.

Say you have a series of levers and gears which open doors in a rat maze. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese at the end remains uneaten. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese is more likely to be eaten.

We can speak of this system in terms of a "digital code" where 0 stands for "open maze door" and 1 stands for "close maze door."

In this maze, if the user enters the "code" of 01001, the probability of cheese being eaten rises. If the user enters 10110, the probability of cheese being eaten is zero.

The system made up rats, cheese, gears, and maze doors has a "digital code" which transforms 1's and 0's into cheese being eaten.

No designer is needed for the system to go from maze door open -> eaten cheese. However, we can interpret the system as digital information leading to functions.

Something seems weird about saying that no Designer is needed for rat mazes.. just saying.

And I don't argue that such Shannon info is descriptive.. just that the info in the cell is prescriptive.

It's probably best to choose an example of something other than, "a series of levers and gears which open doors ... " to explain something which isn't designed.

And the information in DNA is exponentially more specified than binary code- it uses four bases.... even so, all you're doing is explaining something which is intelligently designed to explain away what IDers propose is intelligently designed.

At 8/13/2012 7:33:56 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:Few theories in origin science adequately explain how specified information can arise from chemicals. The only thing I've seen to answer this question is the controversial Design hypothesis.

But it has been said that Design isn't science, yet it uses the same type of reasoning that Darwin & Lyell use... but it just comes to a different conclusion given the new evidence in micro-biology, DNA research, and information science.

So if the Design hypothesis is false (which I'm open to) what else has better explanatory scope / power?

This is a common misunderstanding IDers get from misinterpretting Shannon's theory of information. Namely, that information is anything but descriptive.

Say you have a series of levers and gears which open doors in a rat maze. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese at the end remains uneaten. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese is more likely to be eaten.

We can speak of this system in terms of a "digital code" where 0 stands for "open maze door" and 1 stands for "close maze door."

In this maze, if the user enters the "code" of 01001, the probability of cheese being eaten rises. If the user enters 10110, the probability of cheese being eaten is zero.

The system made up rats, cheese, gears, and maze doors has a "digital code" which transforms 1's and 0's into cheese being eaten.

No designer is needed for the system to go from maze door open -> eaten cheese. However, we can interpret the system as digital information leading to functions.

Something seems weird about saying that no Designer is needed for rat mazes.. just saying.

And I don't argue that such Shannon info is descriptive.. just that the info in the cell is prescriptive.

It's probably best to choose an example of something other than, "a series of levers and gears which open doors ... " to explain something which isn't designed.

You don't quite seem to catch the drift.

The point is that you can assign "digital codes" to almost any system, from formation of snowflakes to whirlwinds to avalanches, all depending on what you designate as the loci of information and the "function" of the information.

The code need not be binary. Each "choice slot" could have five, ten, even a hundred possibilities. So appealing to the relative complexity of DNA is irrelevant.

At 8/13/2012 7:33:56 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:Few theories in origin science adequately explain how specified information can arise from chemicals. The only thing I've seen to answer this question is the controversial Design hypothesis.

But it has been said that Design isn't science, yet it uses the same type of reasoning that Darwin & Lyell use... but it just comes to a different conclusion given the new evidence in micro-biology, DNA research, and information science.

So if the Design hypothesis is false (which I'm open to) what else has better explanatory scope / power?

This is a common misunderstanding IDers get from misinterpretting Shannon's theory of information. Namely, that information is anything but descriptive.

Say you have a series of levers and gears which open doors in a rat maze. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese at the end remains uneaten. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese is more likely to be eaten.

We can speak of this system in terms of a "digital code" where 0 stands for "open maze door" and 1 stands for "close maze door."

In this maze, if the user enters the "code" of 01001, the probability of cheese being eaten rises. If the user enters 10110, the probability of cheese being eaten is zero.

The system made up rats, cheese, gears, and maze doors has a "digital code" which transforms 1's and 0's into cheese being eaten.

No designer is needed for the system to go from maze door open -> eaten cheese. However, we can interpret the system as digital information leading to functions.

Something seems weird about saying that no Designer is needed for rat mazes.. just saying.

And I don't argue that such Shannon info is descriptive.. just that the info in the cell is prescriptive.

It's probably best to choose an example of something other than, "a series of levers and gears which open doors ... " to explain something which isn't designed.

You don't quite seem to catch the drift.

Let's see if I'm enlightened.

The point is that you can assign "digital codes" to almost any system, from formation of snowflakes to whirlwinds to avalanches, all depending on what you designate as the loci of information and the "function" of the information.

Who / what can assign digital codes to any system? ... Snowflakes just have Shannon information, not specified information that's required in DNA. I'm talking about specified information. The kind you use whence dialing a phone number to a specific person, not just random dialing. All your examples use facials and chaotic systems, that's not explaining the DNA enigma.

The code need not be binary. Each "choice slot" could have five, ten, even a hundred possibilities. So appealing to the relative complexity of DNA is irrelevant.

Back to the drawing board for you.

Really? It wouldn't appear I'm enlightened by your (mostly rhetoric) chance to argue adequately for a non-Design hypothesis... even so the "back to the drawing board for you" comment isn't needed, since I'm agnostic over which hypothesis to choose! I have NO drawing board! I've heard both sides and right now it would seem Design hypothesis is the way to go, which, personally, I don't WANT to go that way since I've been an open theist ever since I began my career as a scientist.

So drawing board comments aren't needed there buddy. I'm not some teenagers trying his best to convince someone of creationism. I have legitimate questions, do try to adjust your responses accordingly, otherwise I just won't take you seriously in this discussion.

At 8/13/2012 7:33:56 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:Few theories in origin science adequately explain how specified information can arise from chemicals. The only thing I've seen to answer this question is the controversial Design hypothesis.

But it has been said that Design isn't science, yet it uses the same type of reasoning that Darwin & Lyell use... but it just comes to a different conclusion given the new evidence in micro-biology, DNA research, and information science.

So if the Design hypothesis is false (which I'm open to) what else has better explanatory scope / power?

This is a common misunderstanding IDers get from misinterpretting Shannon's theory of information. Namely, that information is anything but descriptive.

Say you have a series of levers and gears which open doors in a rat maze. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese at the end remains uneaten. If the rat goes through the door, a piece of cheese is more likely to be eaten.

We can speak of this system in terms of a "digital code" where 0 stands for "open maze door" and 1 stands for "close maze door."

In this maze, if the user enters the "code" of 01001, the probability of cheese being eaten rises. If the user enters 10110, the probability of cheese being eaten is zero.

The system made up rats, cheese, gears, and maze doors has a "digital code" which transforms 1's and 0's into cheese being eaten.

No designer is needed for the system to go from maze door open -> eaten cheese. However, we can interpret the system as digital information leading to functions.

Something seems weird about saying that no Designer is needed for rat mazes.. just saying.

And I don't argue that such Shannon info is descriptive.. just that the info in the cell is prescriptive.

It's probably best to choose an example of something other than, "a series of levers and gears which open doors ... " to explain something which isn't designed.

You don't quite seem to catch the drift.

Let's see if I'm enlightened.

The point is that you can assign "digital codes" to almost any system, from formation of snowflakes to whirlwinds to avalanches, all depending on what you designate as the loci of information and the "function" of the information.

Who / what can assign digital codes to any system? ... Snowflakes just have Shannon information, not specified information that's required in DNA. I'm talking about specified information. The kind you use whence dialing a phone number to a specific person, not just random dialing. All your examples use facials and chaotic systems, that's not explaining the DNA enigma.

The code need not be binary. Each "choice slot" could have five, ten, even a hundred possibilities. So appealing to the relative complexity of DNA is irrelevant.

Back to the drawing board for you.

Really? It wouldn't appear I'm enlightened by your (mostly rhetoric) chance to argue adequately for a non-Design hypothesis... even so the "back to the drawing board for you" comment isn't needed, since I'm agnostic over which hypothesis to choose! I have NO drawing board! I've heard both sides and right now it would seem Design hypothesis is the way to go, which, personally, I don't WANT to go that way since I've been an open theist ever since I began my career as a scientist.

So drawing board comments aren't needed there buddy. I'm not some teenagers trying his best to convince someone of creationism. I have legitimate questions, do try to adjust your responses accordingly, otherwise I just won't take you seriously in this discussion.

Asking who/what assigns digital code is like asking who/what assigns a name to an object. The object exists without someone around to name it, but it can be named. If depends, again, on how you define the loci of information and its function.

Talking about "storing/encoding" information into nucleotides is as bogus as saying that assigning the letters A-P-P-L-E to a particular fruit "encodes" a name into the apple.

DNA reactions aren't directed by some meta-program, chemical float around at varying densities, and increasing densities of those chemicals increase other reactions, and so on. There is no point at which "information" is exchanged. It's macromolecules interacting with macromolecules under the same set of general empirically observed laws of chemistry and physics that govern whirlwinds, avalanches, and rat mazes.

Out of curiosity, what are your sentiments on Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information?

The Fool: Knowledge is the De-randomizing of the universe. Learning how anything works is to understand its organizations.

The Intellegent design hypothesis is false.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Asking who/what assigns digital code is like asking who/what assigns a name to an object.

Well isn't that a flip flop... and I quote,

"you can assign "digital codes" to almost any system"

So again, who / what assigns this digital code to the cellular system of which I spoke earlier?

The object exists without someone around to name it, but it can be named. If depends, again, on how you define the loci of information and its function.

You're moving into the anti-realism side of things, most biologists seem to be realist when it comes to the function of the things they name. Why the shift to anti-realism? What else can you define the place of genetic info if not the same place as specified info? I don't see any grounds whatever for keeping them separate since their function, indeed everything about DNA screams specified information. I think most geneticists agree.

Talking about "storing/encoding" information into nucleotides is as bogus as saying that assigning the letters A-P-P-L-E to a particular fruit "encodes" a name into the apple.

Again, I'm familiar with these types of arguments but I'm afraid there's simply no grounds for your claim of rethinking this language. Not only has such Wittingsteinian line of thought has been dismantled since the 60's, but it's just unreasonable to assert that the bases in DNA have no functional role concerning specified information. No offense Wnope, but Geneticists and information scientists would be laughing at such an assertion.

Anyhow the apple analogy is fallacious (about as fallacious as my appeal to authority just then). Our use of language can be anything, yes. But whatever it is, such a code does one specific thing and one thing only, it conveys information necessary for a specific response.

DNA reactions aren't directed by some meta-program, chemical float around at varying densities, and increasing densities of those chemicals increase other reactions, and so on. There is no point at which "information" is exchanged. It's macromolecules interacting with macromolecules under the same set of general empirically observed laws of chemistry and physics that govern whirlwinds, avalanches, and rat mazes.

Right, and this all, unfortunately for both of us, is irrelevant to the argument that Design makes. What you're equating with Shannon information on the larger scale, is much different when it comes to the specified information on the DNA level. Until you see past this I'm afraid we can't speak about the matter on the same level.

Out of curiosity, what are your sentiments on Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information?

It makes sense but I'm open to any good criticisms that aren't like all the ones I've seen on it so far: Yes genetic algorithms can 'solve' the information problem, but only if programmers first supply information about proximity to target sequences, selection criteria, or loops of precisely sequenced instructions.

Also, the recent paper in the Quarterly Review about the loss of function mutations lends credence to Dembski's Law,

At 8/13/2012 6:31:22 PM, Wnope wrote:Asking who/what assigns digital code is like asking who/what assigns a name to an object.

Well isn't that a flip flop... and I quote,

"you can assign "digital codes" to almost any system"

So again, who / what assigns this digital code to the cellular system of which I spoke earlier?

The object exists without someone around to name it, but it can be named. If depends, again, on how you define the loci of information and its function.

You're moving into the anti-realism side of things, most biologists seem to be realist when it comes to the function of the things they name. Why the shift to anti-realism? What else can you define the place of genetic info if not the same place as specified info? I don't see any grounds whatever for keeping them separate since their function, indeed everything about DNA screams specified information. I think most geneticists agree.

Talking about "storing/encoding" information into nucleotides is as bogus as saying that assigning the letters A-P-P-L-E to a particular fruit "encodes" a name into the apple.

Again, I'm familiar with these types of arguments but I'm afraid there's simply no grounds for your claim of rethinking this language. Not only has such Wittingsteinian line of thought has been dismantled since the 60's, but it's just unreasonable to assert that the bases in DNA have no functional role concerning specified information. No offense Wnope, but Geneticists and information scientists would be laughing at such an assertion.

Anyhow the apple analogy is fallacious (about as fallacious as my appeal to authority just then). Our use of language can be anything, yes. But whatever it is, such a code does one specific thing and one thing only, it conveys information necessary for a specific response.

DNA reactions aren't directed by some meta-program, chemical float around at varying densities, and increasing densities of those chemicals increase other reactions, and so on. There is no point at which "information" is exchanged. It's macromolecules interacting with macromolecules under the same set of general empirically observed laws of chemistry and physics that govern whirlwinds, avalanches, and rat mazes.

Right, and this all, unfortunately for both of us, is irrelevant to the argument that Design makes. What you're equating with Shannon information on the larger scale, is much different when it comes to the specified information on the DNA level. Until you see past this I'm afraid we can't speak about the matter on the same level.

Out of curiosity, what are your sentiments on Dembski's Law of Conservation of Information?

It makes sense but I'm open to any good criticisms that aren't like all the ones I've seen on it so far: Yes genetic algorithms can 'solve' the information problem, but only if programmers first supply information about proximity to target sequences, selection criteria, or loops of precisely sequenced instructions.

Also, the recent paper in the Quarterly Review about the loss of function mutations lends credence to Dembski's Law,

To speak of different assignments of 1 and 0 has no relevance to the actual chemical composition or actions of cells. The same system can technically be described an infinite number of ways by varying syntax.

If you have a macromolecule which, due to general chemical laws, replicate in a predictable manner, would you say the macromolecule has information for that replication "encoded" inside it?

If that macromolecule were able to not only replicate itself but also could produce a phenotype (like a lipid bilayer), would you say the macromolecule has suddenly been "encoded" with the ability to produce the phenotype?

Your article, by Michael Behe no less, seems to go against the Conservation of Information.

To speak of different assignments of 1 and 0 has no relevance to the actual chemical composition or actions of cells. The same system can technically be described an infinite number of ways by varying syntax.

If you have a macromolecule which, due to general chemical laws, replicate in a predictable manner, would you say the macromolecule has information for that replication "encoded" inside it?

If that macromolecule were able to not only replicate itself but also could produce a phenotype (like a lipid bilayer), would you say the macromolecule has suddenly been "encoded" with the ability to produce the phenotype?

Your article, by Michael Behe no less, seems to go against the Conservation of Information.

The Design argument doesn't seem dependant upon physio-chemical syntax. All that's needed is for the DNA to have a sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect. Searle's definition of physio-chemical syntax is that it conveyes meaning. The Design definition of specified info is that it conveyes function. So Searle's rigor (as well as your input following his rigor) is a non sequitur.

Yes the article is by Behe, but it's peer reviewed by the Quarterly Review! It wouldn't help to discredit a peer reviewed publicatio of a scientific paper just by saying, oh it comes from a guy who is an ID-er... well he's also a scientist with a very impressive CV. So if you want to discredit his paper it would help to see critiques of his paper with other sci-papers...

That being said, adaptions which involve information loss isn't generated ... it's in the process of being lost! Hence Demski's Law is compatible an even vindicated here by Behe's research. Since information loss only would make sense in a world where Dembski's law is true.

To speak of different assignments of 1 and 0 has no relevance to the actual chemical composition or actions of cells. The same system can technically be described an infinite number of ways by varying syntax.

If you have a macromolecule which, due to general chemical laws, replicate in a predictable manner, would you say the macromolecule has information for that replication "encoded" inside it?

If that macromolecule were able to not only replicate itself but also could produce a phenotype (like a lipid bilayer), would you say the macromolecule has suddenly been "encoded" with the ability to produce the phenotype?

Your article, by Michael Behe no less, seems to go against the Conservation of Information.

The Design argument doesn't seem dependant upon physio-chemical syntax. All that's needed is for the DNA to have a sequence of characters or arrangements of something that produce a specific effect. Searle's definition of physio-chemical syntax is that it conveyes meaning. The Design definition of specified info is that it conveyes function. So Searle's rigor (as well as your input following his rigor) is a non sequitur.

Yes the article is by Behe, but it's peer reviewed by the Quarterly Review! It wouldn't help to discredit a peer reviewed publicatio of a scientific paper just by saying, oh it comes from a guy who is an ID-er... well he's also a scientist with a very impressive CV. So if you want to discredit his paper it would help to see critiques of his paper with other sci-papers...

That being said, adaptions which involve information loss isn't generated ... it's in the process of being lost! Hence Demski's Law is compatible an even vindicated here by Behe's research. Since information loss only would make sense in a world where Dembski's law is true.

The Fool: Dude design is a 'word' which we could only learn be what it means for us to design. IF it is asserted any other form by which we design something it is irrational. And there is all kinds of way we design something. You just argued against the physcal world beng logic but this depend on the very opposite case. How could you rationally hold both believes in the same mind at the same time. /?

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: Dude design is a 'word' which we could only learn be what it means for us to design. IF it is asserted any other form by which we design something it is irrational. And there is all kinds of way we design something. You just argued against the physcal world beng logic but this depend on the very opposite case. How could you rationally hold both believes in the same mind at the same time. /?

Think if I were to discredit your atheism by just saying, dude atheism is just a word. Call Design whatever you want. Logical laws are distinct from physical laws. I don't see how affirming that information can be used to create physical things, it explicitly or implicily equivocating physical & logical laws. Logical laws are necessary truths and DNA, which houses information are contingent.

At 8/14/2012 10:25:06 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:Gravity... it's just a word...

The Fool: I know it is derived from the concept of pressure as in the sensation pressure on the hand. But we use the "word" Gravity in the physical sense to refer the ratio of pressure caused by attraction from a the mass of and object.

Do you see the difference here? I know where all the concepts orignate from, and the necessary condition for the rationalization of words. I could sniff out irrational conceptions.

Your Fool on the hill.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 8/14/2012 10:25:06 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:Gravity... it's just a word...

The Fool: I know it is derived from the concept of pressure as in the sensation pressure on the hand. But we use the "word" Gravity in the physical sense to refer the ratio of pressure caused by attraction from a the mass of and object.

Do you see the difference here? I know where all the concepts orignate from, and the necessary condition for the rationalization of words. I could sniff out irrational conceptions.

Your Fool on the hill.

The ratio of pressure caused by attraction from a the mass of and object... all words.